Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mrs. Gangubai Madhukar Jagdhane and Mrs. Jaivantabai Motiram Naik, were appointed as Class IV employees in a school established and managed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Sardar Pratapsingh Education Society) around 1980. They filed complaints for payment of salary as per 5th Pay Commission Scale, and allegedly due to this, they were not permitted to resume duties after summer vacation on 13 June 2002. After a legal notice, they were allowed to resume for a couple of months, but by notice dated 1 August 2002, they were informed that the school was closing down and their services were terminated due to abolition of posts. The notices were received on 1 October 2002, accompanied by cheques for three months salary, which were encashed. The petitioners filed appeals before the School Tribunal on 10 February 2003 challenging the termination. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on 9 February 2004 for delay, but the High Court set aside that order, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals. The Tribunal again dismissed the appeals on 23 September 2008 on merits, leading to the present writ petitions. The main legal issue was whether the termination violated Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which requires three months advance notice. The petitioners argued that no such notice was given, and the termination was illegal. The respondents contended that the closure of school justified the termination and that the petitioners had accepted compensation. The court analyzed Rule 25A and held that it is mandatory and applies even in cases of closure or abolition of posts. The court found that the termination was illegal and set aside the Tribunal's orders. However, considering the long passage of time and closure of the school, the court directed the respondents to pay each petitioner compensation equivalent to three years' salary, calculated on the basis of last drawn salary, within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would accrue.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Employment - Rule 25A of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Requirement of Three Months Notice - The termination of Class IV employees by the school management without giving three months advance notice as mandated by Rule 25A is illegal and void. The court held that the provision for notice is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with even in case of closure of school or abolition of posts. (Paras 1-11) B) Service Law - School Tribunal - Appeal - Delay Condonation - The School Tribunal had earlier dismissed appeals on ground of delay, but the High Court had condoned the delay and restored the appeals. The Tribunal thereafter erred in dismissing the appeals on merits without considering the violation of Rule 25A. (Paras 2-3) C) Service Law - Termination - Compensation - In cases of illegal termination, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with back wages or compensation in lieu thereof. However, considering the long passage of time and closure of school, the court directed payment of compensation equivalent to three years' salary to each petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of petitioners' services without three months advance notice as required by Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is valid, and whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals on merits despite the procedural violation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders of the School Tribunal dated 23 September 2008, and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay each petitioner compensation equivalent to three years' salary based on last drawn salary within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would be payable.
Law Points
- Termination of school employees without three months advance notice violates Rule 25A of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Abolition of posts due to closure of school does not dispense with requirement of notice under Rule 25A
- School Tribunal's dismissal of appeals for delay set aside as delay was condoned by High Court earlier
